check_package_health

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks for typosquat risk, maintenance status, adoption metrics, and deprecation, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention any destructive behavior or limitations beyond the checks listed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the tool's function, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided, but the description explains the types of metrics returned and the output format options. For a check tool, it covers the necessary context about what is checked and the possible outputs. The presence of similar sibling tools doesn't detract from completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by specifying the types of checks performed (typosquat risk, maintenance, adoption, deprecation) and the output formats (markdown for humans, json for agents), which augments the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks npm packages for specific risks (typosquat, maintenance, adoption, deprecation). It uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'npm packages', and differs from sibling tools like check_dependencies or scan_dependencies which are broader.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using this tool before adding new dependencies to catch suspicious packages, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.